HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-10-24 - Agendas - Final CITY OF
Fay -y� l'I'l� AGENDA
ARKNSAS
Final Agenda
Planning Commission Meeting
October 24, 2016
5:30 PM
113 W. Mountain, Room 219
Members: Kyle Cook (Chair), Ron Autry (Vice Chair), Matthew Hoffman (Secretary), Tracy
Hoskins, Janet Selby, Ryan Noble, Tom Brown, Leslie Belden, and Allison Thurmond Quinlan
City Staff: Andrew Garner, City Planning Director; Jonathan Curth, Senior Planner; Quin
Thompson, Planner; Harry Davis, Planner
City Attorney: Kit Williams
Call to Order
Roll Call
Consent
1. Approval of the minutes from the October 10, 2016 meeting.
Old Business
NONE
New Business
2. VAR 16-5635: Variance Item (608 N. WILLOW AVE./BINGHAM, 446): Submitted by MODUS
STUDIOS for property located at 608 N. WILLOW AVE. The property is zoned RSF-4,
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 0.57 acres.
The request is for a variance to the Streamside Protection Ordinance. Engineer: Alan Pugh
3. LSD 16-5529: Large Scale Development (120 E. SYCAMORE ST./SYCAMORE ST. APTS.,
368): Submitted by BATES &ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located at 120 E. SYCAMORE ST.
The property is zoned CS, COMMUNITY SERVICES and contains approximately 1.61 acres. The
request is for a 19 unit apartment complex with associated parking. Planner: Quin Thompson
4. CUP 16-5637: Administrative Item (2501 S. ARMSTRONG AVE./BRIGHT
TECHNOLOGIES, 643): Submitted by BLEW &ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located at 2501
S. ARMSTRONG AVE. The property is zoned 1-2, GENERAL INDUSTRIAL and contains
approximately 40.00 acres. The request is for offsite parking. Planner: Andrew Garner
Mailing Address:
113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gav
Fayetteville, AR 72701
5. CUP 16-5602: Conditional Use (2558 E. MISSION BLVD./CORE BREWERY, 371):
Submitted by STUART COLLIER for property located at 2558 E. MISSION BLVD. The property
is zoned R-O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 0.55 acres. The request is for
an eating place (Use Unit 13) in an R-O zoned district. Planner: Andrew Garner
6. CUP 16-5617: Conditional Use (1321 E. HUNTSVILLE RD./J. MENDENHALL, 565):
Submitted by JULIA MENDENHALL for property located at 1321 E. HUNTSVILLE RD. The
property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contains
approximately 0.63 acres. The request is for a limited business (UU12) in an RSF-4 zoned district.
Planner: Jonathan Curth
7. VAR 16-5615: Variance Item (EAST OF 120 E. ROCK ST./BOSCIA, 524): Submitted by
CITY STAFF ON BEHALF OF WILLIAM BOSCIA for property located BETWEEN 120 AND 130
E. ROCK ST. The property is zoned DG, DOWNTOWN GENERAL, and contains approximately
0.12 acres. The request is for a variance to UDC Chapters 164.15, Prefabricated Construction,
166.22, Downtown Design Overlay District, and 172.11, Driveway and Parking Standards for
Four (4) Or Less Parking Spaces. Planner: Jonathan Curth
8. RZN 16-5609: Rezone (1764 N. STARR RD./HAYS, 373): Submitted by BATES &
ASSOCIATES, INC. for property at 1764 N. STARR RD. The property is zoned RSF-1,
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 1 UNIT PER ACRE and contains approximately 26.83 acres.
The request is to rezone the property to RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER
ACRE. Planner: Jonathan Curth
9. RZN 16-5598: Rezone (1777 S. SMOKEHOUSE TRAIL/OZARK MOUNTAIN
SMOKEHOUSE, 595): Submitted by FRANK SHARP for property at 1777 S. SMOKEHOUSE
TRAIL. The property is zoned R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately
3.38 acres. The request is to rezone the property to UT, URBAN THOROUGHFARE.
Planner: Quin Thompson
10. RZN 16-5633: Rezone (2350 W. WEDINGTON DR./UPTON, 403): Submitted by JEFF
UPTON for property at 2350 W. WEDINGTON DR. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 0.80 acres. The request is to
rezone the property to NS, NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES. Planner: Jonathan Curth
Discussion Item
11. City Initiated Rezoning of College Avenue between Maple Street and North Street
The following items have been approved administratively by staff:
• LSP 16-5607: Lot Split (867 N. FOX HUNTER RD./WEAVER, 453): Submitted by
JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located at 867 N. FOX HUNTER RD.
The property is in the FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING AREA and contains approximately
18.65 acres. The request is to split the parcel into 2 lots containing approximately 10.65
and 8.00 acres. Planner: Harry Davis
2
• LSP 16-5608: Lot Split (14632 ELKHORN SPRINGS RD./BRESLAU, 468): Submitted
by JAMES LAYOUT SERVICES, INC. for property located at 14632 ELKHORN SPRINGS
RD. The property is in the FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING AREA and contains approximately
34.97 acres. The request is to split the parcel into 2 lots containing approximately 11.96
and 23.28 acres. Planner: Quin Thompson
• LSP/PLA 16-5435: Lot Split-Property Line Adjustment (291 S. HILL AVE./CLICK,
522): Submitted by BATES & ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties located at 291 S. HILL
AVE. The properties are zoned RMF-40, RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY, 40 UNITS PER
ACRE and contain approximately 0.19 and 0.25 acres. The request is to split and adjust
the parcels into 4 lots containing approximately 0.22, 0.07, 0.07 and 0.07 acres.
Planner: Quin Thompson
• LSP 16-5554: Lot Split (1096 E. HUNTSVILLE RD./HOGWASH CARWASH, 525):
Submitted by BLEW&ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties located at 1096 E. HUNTSVILLE
RD. The properties are zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER
ACRE and contain approximately 1.16 acres. The request is to split 2 parcels into 4 lots
containing approximately 0.29 acres each. Planner: Quin Thompson
• LSP-PLA 16-5556: Lot Split/Property Line Adjustment (2184 S. CITY LAKE
RD./KELLY, 681/720): Submitted by REID & ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties located
at 2184 S. CITY LAKE RD. The properties are zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE
FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and are in the FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING AREA and
contain approximately 84.63 acres. The request is to adjust and split 4 parcels into 7 lots
containing approximately 9.40, 5.43, 9.34, 3.95, 9.84, 8.83, and 37.84 acres.
Planner: Quin Thompson
• LSP 16-5608: Lot Split (14632 ELKHORN SPRINGS RD./BRESLAU, 468): Submitted
by JAMES LAYOUT SERVICES, INC. for property located at 14632 ELKHORN SPRINGS
RD. The property is in the FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING AREA and contains approximately
34.97 acres. The request is to split the parcel into 2 lots containing approximately 11.96
and 23.28 acres. Planner: Quin Thompson
Announcements
Adjourn
NOTICE TO MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE:
All interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearings. If you wish to address the Planning
Commission on an agenda item please queue behind the podium when the Chair asks for public comment.
Once the Chair recognizes you, go to the podium and give your name and address.Address your comments
to the Chair, who is the presiding officer. The Chair will direct your comments to the appropriate appointed
official, staff, or others for response. Please keep your comments brief, to the point, and relevant to the
agenda item being considered so that everyone has a chance to speak.
Interpreters or TDD, Telecommunication Device for the Deaf, are available for all public hearings; 72 hour
notice is required. For further information or to request an interpreter, please call 575-8330.
As a courtesy please turn off all cell phones and pagers.
3
A copy of the Planning Commission agenda and other pertinent data are open and available for inspection
in the office of City Planning (575-8267), 125 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. All interested
parties are invited to review the petitions.
4
CITY OF
Ta L MINUTES
ARKANSAS
Planning Commission
October 10, 2016
5:30 PM
113 W. Mountain, Room 219
Members: Kyle Cook (Chair), Ron Autry (Vice Chair), Matthew Hoffman (Secretary), Tracy
Hoskins, Janet Selby, Ryan Noble, Tom Brown, Leslie Belden, and Allison Thurmond Quinlan.
Call to Order: 5:30 PM, Kyle Cook
In Attendance:
Members: Kyle Cook (Chair), Ron Autry (Vice Chair), Matthew Hoffman (Secretary), Tracy
Hoskins, Janet Selby, Tom Brown, Ryan Noble, and Allison Thurmond Quinlan.
Absent: Leslie Belden
Staff: Andrew Garner, Jonathan Curth, Quin Thompson, Harry Davis, and Corey Granderson
City Attorney: Kit Williams
Consent Agenda:
1. Approval of the minutes from the September 26, 2016 meeting.
2. ADM 16-5616: Administrative Item (SOUTH OF 3203 N. WARWICK DR./HUNTINGDON
APTS., 216): Submitted by COMMUNITY BY DESIGN for property located SOUTH OF 3203 N.
WARWICK DR. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER
ACRE, and contains approximately 1.13 acres. The request is for an extension to the original
approval of LSD 15-5074.
Motion:
Commissioner Hoffman made a motion to approve the consent agenda. Commissioner
Quinlan seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0.
Mailing Address: Planning Commission
niptober24,
113 W. Mountain Street www.fayettevilleAem 1
Fayetteville, AR 72701 10-10-2016 Minutes
Page 1 of 13
Old Business:
3. CUP 16-5558: Conditional Use(3250 N. FUTRALL DR./FUTRALL DR. CELL TOWER, 211):
Submitted by SMITH COMMUNICATIONS, INC. for property located at 3250 N. FUTRALL DR.
The property is zoned P-1, INSTITUTIONAL and contains approximately 5.56 acres. The request
is for a wireless communication facility.
Harry Davis, Planner: Read the staff report.
David Reynolds, Applicant: Thanks the Planning Commission for tabling the item at the last
meeting. Since the last meeting, Smith Two-way has contacted WRMC and asked them to
provide more information about the need for a cell tower on their campus. Reynolds has also
been in contact with an engineer associated with Verizon and how a tower lower than 145 feet
would not be suitable for this location and will cause Verizon to walk away from the
development. Reynolds then shows maps that indicate the penetration levels of cellular service
at various heights. He then explains the difference between coverage and capacity and how it
has changed over time. Today's coverage has voice and data over the same transmission. With
current technology, cell service must be located in the areas where people are.
Public Comment:
No public comment was presented.
Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner: Asks applicant if the areas that are not covered by the
proposed tower are covered by other existing towers.
Reynolds: Answers yes, but explains how the towers would work together to manage groups of
people at various places within the city. Some of the existing towers have capacity and
coverage problems and this tower would help solve them.
Hoffman: Explains that a redundant system would not be a good argument for this cell tower
and how there are more places where the proposed tower overlaps with other towers than
spaces that are not overlapped.
Reynolds: Re-explains how this would help with capacity coverage issues.
Ron Autry, Commissioner: Begins by explaining his past professional work with wireless
communications. Autry understands how data and voice have now been combined into one
transmission from cell towers. He goes into a few different examples from across the United
States about the difference between coverage versus capacity and how most examples have
gone against the argument of capacity and coverage are the same and how more cell towers
are needed to provide more coverage. He discusses how this proposed tower would not
increase the area coverage for the area versus existing towers. Autry also discusses his
knowledge about how cell coverage works in relation to trees and buildings. He asks Reynolds
if this cell tower would penetrate 100% of the building.
Reynolds: Answers yes, except the areas that are not fully covered are under another internal
wireless system to be done as a separate project within the building.
Autry: Provides further information about cell service in the hospital. He also goes into different
stories about using smaller towers and services that would be better with a smaller impact on
the landscape but have the same effect.
Planning Commission
October 4,2016
Agen a Item 1
10-10-2016 Minutes
Page 2 of 13
Reynolds: Explains how the Razorback stadium is setup up with many smaller antennas that
provide the same service. The proposed site and area for the proposed cell tower does not have
the same characteristics that a stadium has and therefore needs a cell tower rather than the
smaller and more numerous systems.
Autry: Rejects the argument that a smaller system could not be used and how these systems
are getting more and more attainable as time goes by.
Hoskins: Asks if cell service is line-of-sight.
Reynolds: Answers not exactly, as you will get better service if you can see a tower, but you
can get signal in this room. The higher the frequency, the better the service.
Hoskins: Asks if the smaller the tower, the more there would need to be.
Reynolds: Answers yes and explains further.
Hoskins: Asks if the gap between the circles on the map is a dead zone.
Reynolds: Explains how it isn't an exact diagram of coverage, but is a basic geographical
distance between towers.
Hoskins: Asks if the main issue here is coverage.
Reynolds: Explains further coverage and capacity and how they are intertwined.
Hoskins: States that he was interested in the story about the stadium and will support one large
tower rather than several smaller towers.
Autry: States that he does not have any connectivity issues in this area under Verizon service.
He explains how this system is incredibly complex and how this proposed tower affects the
area. Autry then goes into paging and how that works within the hospital.
Tom Brown, Commissioner: Asks if the pink area is what will get coverage on the map.
Reynolds: Answers yes.
Brown: Asks more about this location and if the power can be boosted in the existing towers.
Reynolds: Explains the location and how the power cannot be increased. He also goes into the
other locations considered for this tower.
Allison Quinlan, Commissioner: Reiterates the pink area purpose and to compare the maps,
ending by explaining her position.
Hoffman: Concurs with Quinlan.
Hoskins: Asks about a 120 foot tall tower now and if another would be built later.
Reynolds: States the project before you would die and that a cell tower would be proposed at a
different location.
Hoskins: Asks if a cell tower at 150 feet would be approved now, would Reynolds come back
to ask for another tower in the area.
Reynolds: Answers no.
Planning Commission
OctoberY4,2016
Agenda Item 1
10-10-2016 Minutes
Page 3 of 13
Janet Selby, Commissioner: Surmises that a bigger tower would be better than two smaller
ones.
Quinlan: States that the areas that are said to be helped by this tower are not within the most
improved area.
Hoffman: Argues that the pink area would be serviced by the smaller tower.
Autry: Argues that he cannot see an end to more proposals for cell towers regardless of height
in the area.
Hoskins: Argues that the larger tower would off-load data pull from other towers.
Reynolds: Agrees and says that co-location would also be a huge benefit for this area in
conjunction with a cell tower.
Hoskins: States that the larger cell tower would be better rather than several smaller ones.
Kit Williams, City Attorney: Explains that a new statute would allow for a Certificate of Need to
be provided by cell providers that would allow said providers to develop without Planning
Commission approval to be built in City right-of-way. The cell tower is considered a utility and
therefore protected more by the state and Federal governments. He argues this proposal may
protect us from more towers in the future in this area due to increased coverage, but it is not
certain. Due to an absent Commissioner, votes against the cell tower would need to be well-
made. Williams agrees with Hoskins' interpretation of this proposal. Williams then briefs the
Commission briefly about some changes to cell towers that may happen in the future.
Kyle Cook, Commission Chair: States that he does not have a problem with a few smaller
towers.
Autry: States that more cell towers will be made in Fayetteville in places like Rupple Road.
Motion #1:
Commissioner Hoskins made a motion to approve CUP 16-5558. Commissioner Selby
seconded the motion.
Hoffman: Due to preserving skyline and landscape of Fayetteville and this being a gateway,
votes against the proposal.
Quinlan: Due to existing coverage, votes against the proposal.
Noble: Votes in favor of the proposal.
Selby: Votes in favor of the proposal.
Autry: Due to technology, Fayetteville gateway, and preserving the skyline, votes against the
proposal.
Hoskins: Votes in favor of the proposal.
Brown: Votes in favor of the proposal.
Cook: Due to a smaller tower being more preferable, votes against the proposal.
Planning Commission
October 4,2016
Agen a Item 1
10-10-2016 Minutes
Page 4 of 13
Upon roll call the motion for a 150' tower failed with a vote of 4-4-0. Commissioners
Hoffman, Quinlan, Autry, and Cook voted `no'.
Williams: Asks the applicant if they would want to be tabled and be heard when all
Commissioners are present.
Motion #2:
Commissioner Hoskins made a motion to approve CUP 16-5558 with a 135' tower.
Commissioner Selby seconded the motion.
Hoffman: Asks if Hoskins would change to 120 feet.
Hoskins: Answers no.
Upon roll call the motion for a 135' tower failed with a vote of 4-4-0. Commissioners
Hoffman, Quinlan, Autry, and Cook voted `no'.
Motion #3:
Commissioner Quinlan made a motion to approve CUP 16-5558 with all conditions as
recommended by staff. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. Upon roll call the
motion for a 120' tower passed with a vote of 7-1-0. Commissioner Cook voted `no'.
4. RZN 16-5589: Rezone (714 W. MLK BLVD. & 511 HILL AVENUE/DARK CREDIT UNION,
522): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties at 714 W. MILK BLVD.
and 511 HILL AVENUE. The property is zoned RMF-24, RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, 24
UNITS PER ACRE, AND RMF-40, RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, 40 UNITS PER ACRE and
contains approximately 0.37 acres. The request is to rezone the property to C-1,
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL.
Andrew Garner, City Planning Director: Gave the staff report.
Blake Jorgensen, Jorgensen and Associates, applicant representative: Was present to
answer questions.
Public Comment:
Zara Neiderman, Developer in south Fayetteville: Discussed opposition to the request and
opportunity for a form-based code.
No more public comment was presented.
Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner: Discussed opposition to the request.
Jorgensen: Discussed the reason for the C-1 zoning request.
Hoffman: Can this be developed under a form-based zoning?
Jorgensen: Yes the building will be on the corner and it could be a form-based zoning.
Planning Commission
Octoberrg4,2016
Agenda Item 1
10-10-2016 Minutes
Page 5 of 13
Tracy Hoskins, Commissioner: I am in favor of form-based zoning, more to the core of the town.
He discuss background of the rezoning for the Walmart Neighborhood Market and the Kum and
Go Gas Station where City Council overturned the Planning Commission's recommendation for
form-based zoning.
Kit Williams, City Attorney: Discussed that the commission can look at what the City Council
actually did in the last few years. The recent rezoning in the area is that the policy makers have
agreed that form-based zonings are not required at this corner. They have agreed with the
applicants in recent years for standard commercial zoning.
Allison Quinlan, Commissioner: Discussed that the Planning Commission have a very different
role than the City Council. We should make Planning Commission decisions based on how we
feel this should be rezoned. If we make our decisions based on how we think City Council will
vote, we are circumventing the purpose of this board. She discussed support for a form-based
zoning district.
Motion:
Commissioner Hoskins made a motion to forward RZN 16-5589. Commissioner Noble
seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion failed with a vote of 3-4-1. Commissioners
Hoffman, Quinlan, Selby, and Brown voted 'no'. Commissioner Cook recused.
New Business:
5. VAR 16-5611: Variance (603 N. VINSON AVE./SKOCH-BURCH, 447): Submitted by
PARKCO ARCHITECTS, INC. for properties located at 603 N. VINSON AVE. The properties are
zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contain approximately
0.33 acres. The request is a variance for reduced driveway length.
Quin Thompson, Planner: Gave the staff report.
Tim Peterson, Applicant's Representative: Said that the primary design concerns were
topography and preserving mature trees.
Public Comment:
Amber Henley, Neighbor: Said that she was very concerned that the tree ordinance should be
enforced on this site, where trees had been removed by the previous owner. She asked whether
a fine had been assessed for this project. She asked that a condition of approval be added that
would require a formal response from the Urban Forester.
No more public comment was presented.
Kyle Cook, Chair: Asked the City Attorney for a comment.
Kit Williams, City Attorney: Said that this is a protected area that allows a limited amount of
disturbance. He added that it would not be proper to add a condition as sought by Ms. Henley,
saying that such reviews are conducted at the time of development.
Planning Commission
Octoberr�4,2016
Agenda Item 1
10-10-2016 Minutes
Page 6 of 13
Andrew Garner, Planning Director: Said that Development Services is aware of the issue, and
since this property is in the HHOD so a grading plan will be required at the time of development.
Tom Brown, Commissioner: Asked if it was possible to remove the garage farther from the right-
of-way.
Peterson: Said that it was possible, but that the garage would cause greater impact to a mature
40" pine tree that is the best tree on the site, and that the home has been designed around in
order to save.
Motion:
Commissioner Hoffman made a motion to approve VAR 16-5611 with conditions as
recommended by staff. Commissioner Hoskins seconded the motion. Upon roll call the
motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0.
6. ADM 16-5614: Administrative Item (612 S. WILLOW AVE./NIEDERMAN, 445): Submitted
by ZARA NIEDERMAN for property located at 612 S. WILLOW AVE. The property is zoned DG,
DOWNTOWN GENERAL and contains approximately 0.14 acres. The request is an appeal of the
City Engineer's refusal to grant a waiver for construction of public sidewalk for a new home
pursuant to UDC Ch. 171.13.
Corey Granderson, Staff Engineer:_ Gave the staff report.'
Zara Niederman, Applicant: Read goals of the 2020 vision to the Planning Commission and
discussed how infill development is achieved. He explained the Engineering Division requirement
of 90' of new sidewalk on private property. He said he understood that the construction of a new
home does not require dedication of new right-of-way. He said that it should not be the
responsibility of the landowner to construct infrastructure, but rather that is the responsibility of
the City. He added that building sidewalk parcel by parcel is not the most efficient use of
resources.
Public Comment:
No Public Comment was presented.
Kit William, City Attorney: Said that Mr. Niederman is correct, but for a different reason than
stated. He said that the US Constitution says that we cannot require an exaction beyond a rough
proportion to new impact on the site, and that since a house had already been on this site, there
is no increase in intensity of development, so no new sidewalk can be required. He said that the
construction of this new house represents zero impact to the site, and there is absolutely no way
to require new sidewalk regardless of how much we all like sidewalks, and regardless of any
municipal ordinance requiring new sidewalk. We cannot require Mr. Niederman to build or donate
toward new sidewalk on this site. If we want sidewalk there, then we will have to build that with
taxpayer money. On the other hand, an increase in scale of a new[larger] home may well increase
impact and therefore new sidewalk would be appropriate.
Kyle Cook, Chair: Said As much as I would love to see sidewalk everywhere, I do agree with Mr.
Williams based on my experience with sewer impact fees at the University of Arkansas.
Planning Commission
October-�4,2016
Agenda Item 1
10-10-2016 Minutes
Page 7 of 13
Ron Autry, Commissioner: I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Williams. This is a nice new home
with existing sidewalk that may not meet our current standards, but is functional. New sidewalk
[on Willow St] should not be required.
Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner: Said that he agreed with the opinions expressed by the City
Attorney and other commissioners. He added that he has concerns about the design of the City's
approved street sections, and that it may be in the best interest to revisit those in the future during
the Transportation Plan review process.
Tom Brown, Commissioner: Asked the City Attorney if it would be appropriate to ask the
applicant to donate the right-of-way for future sidewalk.
Williams: Said that the chair should decide if the applicant could be addressed with a question.
Brown: Asked Niederman if he would consider donating the land for future sidewalk.
Niederman: Said that the request seemed very reasonable.
Williams: Said that donation of right-of-way to the City has tax implications, and that perhaps Mr.
Niederman should consider donating that right-of-way at a time when it would be useful to have
a deduction. He said that he is free to donate, but that he would not want Mr. Niederman to feel
pressure to donate.
Brown: Thanked the City Attorney for his comments and withdrew his comments to Mr.
Niederman.
Niederman: Thanked everyone for their input, and said that he would like to see the neighborhood
redeveloped in a way that is pedestrian friendly and has lots of amenities.
Tracy Hoskins, Commissioner: Said he had no problem with the variance, and added that the
City has ordinances that require infrastructure improvements when a property is improved past a
certain percentage, including parking lot improvements, access, and what have you. He said that
this project represents a one hundred percent improvement. How is this project different?
Andrew Garner, Planning director: Said that the types of improvements described by Mr.
Hoskins are required by the landscaping code for parking lot landscaping when commercial
properties are expanded or improved beyond a certain threshold.
Alison Thurmond-Quinlan, Commissioner: Said that right-of-way requirements for some
streets do not reflect the conditions that help to recreate the neighborhoods and streets that as a
City we seek to build.
Cook: Said that street design standards are an incremental process, and that they are much
better than the previous standards.
Thurmond-Quinlan: Said that she understands that, and that our street designs are superior to
those of many other Cities, but that there is always room for improvement.
Motion:
Planning Commission
October�?4,2016
Agenda Item 1
10-10-2016 Minutes
Page 8 of 13
Commissioner Hoskins made a motion to approve ADM 16-5614. Commissioner Hoffman
seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0.
7. VAR 16-5593: Variance (NW OF MLK BLVD & HILL AVENUE/UARK CREDIT UNION, 522):
Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties NW OF MLK BLVD. & HILL
AVE. The properties are zoned RMF-24, RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, 24 UNITS PER ACRE,
RMF-40, RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, 40 UNITS PER ACRE and C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL and contain approximately 0.82 acres. The request is for a variance of the access
management code for a new driveway.
Andrew Garner, City Planning Director: Gave the staff report.
Blake Jorgensen, Jorgensen and Associates, Inc., applicant: Was present for questions.
Public Comment:
No Public Comment was presented.
Kit Williams, City Attorney: Discussed the section of code that a variance shall be granted for
the property owner abutting the street.
Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner: Discussed that he was in favor of the first site plan that was
in the packet, not the second one presented on the screen. The first one eliminates cut through
traffic and is a preferred urban design. He discussed concern with safety issues of people cutting
through the parking lot.
Tracy Hoskins, Commissioner: Discussed a preference with the site plan with more greenspace
in front of the building and longer throat length so cars can get in the site faster.
Motion:
Commissioner Hoskins made a motion to approve VAR 16-5593 with conditions as
recommended by staff. Commissioner Noble seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion
passed with a vote of 4-3-1. Commissioners Hoffman, Quinlan, and Brown voted `no'.
Commissioner Cook recused.
8. RZN 16-5588: Rezone (407 N. MTN. RANCH BLVD./STRIKER DEVELOPMENT, 479):
Submitted by JORGENSEN &ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties at 407 N. MTN. RANCH BLVD.
The properties are zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and
contain approximately 3.65 acres. The request is to rezone the properties to NC,
NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION.
Quin Thompson, Planner: Gave the staff report.
Blake Jorgensen, Applicant's representative: Said he was present to answer questions if
needed.
Public Comment:
No Public Comment was presented.
Planning Commission
Octoberq-4,2016
Agenda Item 1
10-10-2016 Minutes
Page 9 of 13
Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner: Said he supported the rezone to NC.
Motion:
Commissioner Hoffman made a motion to forward RZN 16-5588 with recommended approval.
Commissioner Autry seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of
8-0-0.
9. RZN 16-5590: Rezone (NE OF MCGUIRE ST. & VAN ASCHE DR./WG LAND COMPANY,
171): Submitted by JORGENSEN &ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties at NE OF MCGUIRE ST.
& VAN ASCHE DR. The properties are zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL & C-3,
CENTRAL COMMERCIAL and contain approximately 23 acres. The request is to rezone the
property to C-3, CENTRAL COMMERCIAL.
Andrew Garner, City Planning Director: gave the staff report.
Blake Jorgensen, Jorgensen and Associates, Inc., applicant: Was present for questions.
Public Comment:
No Public Comment was presented.
Tom Brown, Commissioner: Discussed he would be in favor of UT.
Kit Williams, City Attorney: Advised the commission that the rezoning request is only for 23
acres, not the entire site.
Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner: Discussed that this is an opportunity to create an urban
street through this site. When we looked at this last year staff was not in favor of any of the C
zonings. Most were in favor of form-based zonings. Quinlan made a great point earlier tonight
that there is a reason why we have two different bodies. I would suggest UT or something else.
Tracy Hoskins, Commissioner: Gave background on City Plan 2020 and how traditional town
form was initially presented as another option. He discussed that this board is now dictating form-
based zoning districts on every parcel. He is in favor of the proposed rezoning.
Hoffman: Discussed that UT zoning would open them up to many more uses. It is pretty heavily
compromised in terms of urban form with only 50% build able street frontage.
Hoskins: said he can't imagine big box stores pulled up to the streets. I think we are getting a
little bit crazy with it.
Allison Quinlan, Commissioner: Imagined a place with big boxes at the street and it is Pinnacle.
I can imagine this type of development pattern. We are setting the development pattern for an
area where we just spent a large amount of public funds. We know what we will get for C-1 and
C-2 zonings. I don't think the outskirts of our town need to be relegated to large parking lots. I
can't support a C zoning for this area.
Tom Brown, Commissioner: Asked about the City Plan 2030 designation. He discussed that
this body recommended form-based zoning districts on this in the past and we should be
consistent.
Planning Commission
Octobeir(Y4,2016
Agenda Item 1
10-10-2016 Minutes
Page 10 of 13
Williams: Discussed that at times the Planning Commission loses their way and forgets who the
policy makers are. If a rezoning was recently denied by the Planning Commission and approved
by City Council, the commission should respect council decisions. When the commission
continually votes in opposition to previous council decisions it is concerning. He advised the
commission to be a little more respectful to council's previous decisions.
Kyle Cook, Commissioner: Disagreed with Mr. Williams that the commission is disrespecting
the council. We are just making a recommendation to the council.
Hoffman: Indicated that he listened very closely to what the council previously stated on this
property. It is not our place to guess what move the council will make. I see my role as an advisor
based on my expertise.
Quinlan: Said that if we [Planning Commission] are supposed to guess which way City Council
will vote, it is giving up the entire reason they asked us to be here.
Motion:
Commissioner Hoskins made a motion to forward RZN 16-5590 with approval as requested.
Commissioner Noble seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion failed with a vote of 3-
5-0. Commissioners Hoffman, Quinlan, Autry, Brown, and Cook voted 'no'.
10. RZN 16-5594: Rezone (15 S.WEST AVE./KOLBERG, 523): Submitted by MARK KOLBERG
for property at 15 S.WEST AVE. The property is zoned NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION
and contains approximately 0.37 acres. The request is to rezone the property to MSC,
MAIN/STREET CENTER.
Jonathan Curth, Senior Planner: Gave the staff report.
Mark. Kolberg, Applicant: Thinks that staff has done an adequate job describing the request
and would like the opportunity to respond to the letter submitted from a resident. Notes that he
disagrees with the assertion that the existing structure adds to the character of the
neighborhood as it is quite dilapidated. The amount of work required to repair the home is
financially unfeasible.
Public Comment:
No public comment was presented.
Commissioner Tom Brown: Would generally not have a problem with this request, but knows
that the Downtown Master Plan went through a rigorous public input process. Although he does
not recall this area in particular, he remembers that the NC zoning district was intended as a
preservation and buffering tool. As he looks more at this are and this request he realizes more
what the intent was behind zoning this particular portion of downtown to NC. Solicits the
thoughts of other Commissioners.
Commissioner Ron Autry: Concurs with the applicant that there is little to no charm to the
existing structure, and is not opposed to this rezoning. Also does not foresee the proposed
creating future rezoning efforts to the south.
Planning Commission
Octobeir�4,2016
Agen a Item 1
10-10-2016 Minutes
Page 11 of 13
Motion:
Commissioner Selby made a motion to forward RZN 16-5594 with recommended approval.
Commissioner Autry seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of
7-1-0. Commissioner Brown voted 'no'.
11. Planning Commission Discussion Item on City-initiated Rezonings.
Andrew Garner, Planning Director: Begins by noting that Commissioners expressed interest
in City-initiated rezonings that would be in-line with City Plan 2030. Although not certain what
may come of this discussion, makes suggestions for Commissioners if they want to move
forward, possibly in the form of a resolution to the City Council or some such item.
Commissioner Tom Brown: Is not certain where the other Commissioners stand on the idea of
City-initiated rezonings, but based on conversations about recent public improvements to
College Avenue it appears that something ought to be done to bring existing buildings in to
compliance or initiate rezonings that would encourage development patterns that reflect City
Plan 2030 goals. Suggests a motion to create a subcommittee to review these items.
Commissioner Matthew Hoffman: Clarifies that this discussion is largely about the stretch of
College Avenue between North and Maple. Notes that at least one rezoning has come in for UT
at College and North and contends that the development community is ready for this. Also,
many of the buildings along College Avenue are already in conformance with the City's form-
based zoning districts. Would like to see involvement of businesses and residents to ensure
buy-in and community support.
Brown: Thinks it may be appropriate to break up portions of the College Avenue corridor
between Maple and North to see if it is effective or well-received. It may also be valuable to
perform this parallel to the creation of neighborhood plans that border or cross College Avenue.
Commissioner Kyle Cook: Notes that it would be valuable to have Washington County
involved due to their ownership of large properties in the area. Agrees that there are significant
opportunities along several of the properties along the College Avenue corridor, but is uncertain
what kind of staff resources this may require.
Garner: States that staff has discussed the potential of this and similar projects at length, with
there even having been a goal at one point to create a neighborhood plan every two years.
Informs the Commissioners that Planning staff currently handles all long-range and current
planning, and that no long-range planners are in the Planning Division any more. This makes
these projects time-consuming, but no less important. Notes that breaking it up in to smaller
portions makes it more viable.
Hoffman: Reiterates that involving stakeholders is critical, and that he would value being
involved, particularly in a less-formal environment.
Garner: Acknowledges the idea and says it is very feasible. Staff has looked at College Avenue
and other corridors, and would like to involve the administration in assessing the urgency of
such a project in assessing the resources dedicated to it.
Planning Commission
October 4,2016
Agen a Item 1
10-10-2016 Minutes
Page 12 of 13
Commissioner Ron Autry: Agrees with Commissioner Hoffman that College Avenue
represents a perfect test to consider this proposal. It may be valuable to expand the Subdivision
Committee to be involved.
Cook: Is uncertain whether the administration feels there are adequate resources.
Commissioner Allison Quinlan: States that a motion is probably the appropriate measure for
this, and it may help assess whether this is viable moving forward.
Cook: Notes that there is enough consensus to move forward and inquiries from staff about the
next step.
Garner: Notes that at this point it may be most appropriate to inquire from administration as to
what is best, and staff will inform the Commission at the next meeting.
1. Reports: None
2. Announcements: None
3. Adjournment Time: 9:03 PM
4. Submitted by: City Planning Division
Planning Commission
Octobeiry4,2016
Agenda Item 1
10-10-2016 Minutes
Page 13 of 13
CITY OF
pp e-v-
e
a 4 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO
ARKANSAS
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission
THRU: Chris Brown, City Engineer
FROM: Alan Pugh. Staff Engineer
MEETING DATE: October 24, 2016
SUBJECT: VAR 16-5635: Variance 1608 N Willow Ave): Submitted by Modus Studio
for the property located at 608 N Willow Ave. The property is zoned RSF-4
and contains approximately 0.5 acres. The request is for a variance of the
Streamside Protection Zone
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of VAR 16-5635 as described further within this memorandum,
BACKGROUND:
The variance relates to the property at address 608 N Willow Avenge which is located the east
side of N Willow Ave within the Maplewood Addition. The county records indicate a single family
lot which is approximately 0.5 acres in size.
The subdivision was originally platted in the 1950's which was in advance of the streamside
protection ordinance adopted in 2041_ Scull Creek rums through the subject property and is
protected by the adopted ordnance.
DISCUSSION:
The applicant proposes to remodel/reconstruct an existing single family residence located on the
property. This will include revision of the exterior footprint, a portion of which already lie within
the defined streamside protection zones where an expansion of the footprint would not be allowed
by ordinance. The variance request is for an allowance to expand the footprint within the
management zone as shown on the exhibit titled New Layout-With Proposed Re-grading. This
will include the addition of approximately 164 SF of permanent structure and a shallow dipping
pool on a permanent stem/wall foundation located within the management zone. Also included
will be a new deck area on the rear of the home which would not require a variance as it meets
the streamside protection ordinance requirements.
Along with the improvements to the home, the owner proposes to make enhancements to the
streamside zones that include flattening areas within the waterside zone, utilizing gabions to
mitigate streambank erosion and the addition of native species plantings. While these
improvements are allowed by ordinance and do not require a variance staff feels the stream
enhancements in particular are pertinent to the variance request.
The proposed regrading/flattening of the waterside zone will include the addition of a small wall
as shown on the exhibits, however, will also add the benefit of allowing the stream to be connected
Planning Commission
GAETClaevelopment Services Review120160eveivpment RevreM16.5635 VAR 608 IN Wil Iow Ave.{Bingham}446103 Plannrng Corn missioml0-24- October 24,2016
20MGommetits and Redlines
Agenda Item 2
16-5635 Bingham
Page 1 of 15
to a small floodplain area in the rear yard. The waterside zone is currently steep lawn area that
forces the stream to spread mostly to the east and would be difficult to plant due to the steep
slope. The bank stabilization and native plantings should reduce sediment loading to the stream
and add ecological benefits to the project.
It should be noted that the total area of structure located within the streamside protection zones
will actually be decreased in the post-developed condition. This is partially due to the areas in
which the applicant proposes to place the permanent structure further from the stream than the
original footprint and the proposed regrading within the waterside zone on the northern portions
of the property.
Recommendation: Finding that the proposed project will decrease the non-compliance and
enhance the riparian areas within the City, staff recommends approval of VAR 16-5635 subject
to the following conditions:
1. Applicant shall enhance the streamside protection zones by stabilizing the sfreambank,
re-grading the waterside zone and include native species plantings as shown on the
attached exhibits. With the proposed sfreambank stabilization, the capacity of the existing
channel shall not be decreased or the applicant has the option to perform an engineering
analysis showing that the capacity is sufficient based on City of Fayetteville drainage
requirements. Such an analysis is subject to review and approval of the engineering
division. The applicant shall apply for and obtain the appropriate permits to perform the
work within the stream. Copies of these permits will be submitted to the City of Fayetteville
prior to construction.
2. No additional accessory structure would be allowed within the streamside zones.
3. The old pipe or septic area located on the southern portion of the property shall be further
investigated and repaired if necessary or properly removed or abandoned. The final plans
for the structure in question are subject to approval by the City of Fayetteville and any
additional regulating authority.
4. The current owner shall disclose to any potential buyer of the lot/home affected that the
lotlhome is subject to the streamside ordinance and they will be responsible for
compliance as the owner. This disclosure shall include a description of the purpose of
any features constructed to comply with this variance request and the fact that the features
must be maintained in order for the lot to remain in compliance.
5. The developer shall propose and use best management practices (BMPs) to limit
sediment runoff during construction of the home. An erosion control plan shall be
developed and submitted to staff for approval prior to construction.
6. The developer may elect to further water qualify efforts by utilizing low impact
development(LID) measures where possible during the construction of the homes.
Measures such as rain gardens or bioswales are encouraged but not required. If utilized
they should be designed and maintained in general accordance with the City of
Fayetteville Drainage Criteria Manual.
Planning Commission Action: Approved Forwarded I_i Denied
Meeting Date: October 24, 2016
Motion:
Second:
Vote:
Planning Commission
G:ETC1Cevelopment Services RevieM20 I 60evelopme nt Rewewl16.5635 VAR 608 N Willow Ave.(Bingham)446103 Planning Commission\10-24- October 24,2016
201 Morn ments and Redlines
Agenda Item 2
16-5635 Bingham
Page 2 of 15
FINDINGS:
City of Fayetteville Unified Development Code
Section 156.03 Development Variances
Certain variances of the development regulations may be applied for as follows:
(C) Consideration by the Planning Commission
(9) Streamside Protection Zones
(a) Undue hardship. If the provisions of the Streamside Protection Ordinance are
shown by the owner or developer to cause undue hardship as strictly applied to
the owner or developer's property because of its unique characteristics, the
Planning Commission may grant a variance on a permanent or temporary basis
from such provision so that substantial justice may be done and the public interest
protected, provided that the variance will not have the effect of nullifying the intent
and purpose of the Streamside Protection regulations.
Staff agrees that modifications to the existing structure would be limited given the extent of the
current streamside protection zones. While it is difficult in this case to indicate that this creates
an undue hardship, staff does feel that the request is in keeping with the intent of the ordinance
to protect and enhance the riparian zones throughout the City. It would also ultimately lessen the
non-compliance by removing portions of the structure from the streamside protection zones.
(b) Consideration of alternative measures. The applicant for the variance shall
establish that a reasonable rezoning by the City Council or variance request from
the Board of Adjustment will not sufficiently alleviate the claimed undue hardship
caused by the Streamside Protection regulations.
Due to the extent of the streamside protection zone on the property, a rezoning or variance
request from the board of adjustments would not address the hardship to an extent that would
otherwise make the construction of a home on the lot feasible. As shown the applicant does
propose streamside enhancements to improve the riparian area while lesseninq the
encroachment of the structure.
(c) Conditions and safeguards. In granting any variance, the Planning Commission
may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards to substantially secure the
objectives and purpose for the regulations so varied and to mitigate any
detrimental effects the variance may cause. The Planning Commission should
consider the Strearnside Protection Best Management Practices Manual and any
mitigation recommendations from the City Engineer.
See staff conditions listed above.
Planning Commission
G:IETCII?evelopment Services Reviewl2016Tevelopment RevieMl6.5535 VAR 608 N Willow Ave.(8irngham)446\03 Planning Com m�ssion)10-24- October 24,2016
20161Commenis and Redlines Agenda Item 2
16-5635 Bingham
Page 3 of 15
BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT:
None
Attachments:
■ Applicant's letter
• Proposed variance request exhibits
• One Mile & Close-up Maps
Planning Commission
G%ETC%Dev elopme nt Services RevieM2016\DeveIopment RevieW 16-5635 VAR 608 H.Widow Ave.(8ingham)446143 Planning CommissbO10-24- October 24,2016
20161Camments and Redlines Agenda Item 2
16-5635 Bingham
Page 4 of 15
modus
Date: 2016.10.05
To: Kyle Cook Planning Commission Chair
CC: Alan Pugh j Staff Engineer
From: Graham Patterson I modus studio on behalf of Paul Bingham
RE: 608 North Willow Avenue-Variance
Kyle,
Paul Bingham has been working with Modus Studio to renovate a historic home in the Washington Willow
neighborhood.The original house was built in 1505 and sits very close to Scull Creek. With the 5treamside
Protection ordinance adopted in 2011, the house already sits within the streamside management zone and
partially within the waterside zone;essentially keeping us from adding any square footage or beautification
elements in the back yard. Furthermore, there is a fallen tree sitting over the creek on the North side of the
property,which destroyed part of the bank as it fell.This weakened creek bank is now susceptible to further
erosion;thus,causing the Top of Bank line to be a moving target.The original house is showing signs of water
damage and is very broken-up inside with small rooms,low head clearances, and tight spaces.The owner has
asked modus to update the house to modern living standards and correct any structural issues the house may have
incurred due to water damage.
In order to accommodate the owners' needs,and attain a building permit for the renovation at 608 N. Willow Ave,
we will need to ask for three variances:
1) To repair the integrity of the creek hank,and prevent any further erosion:The city has already
constructed a Gabion wall, along the creek bank,on the South side of the property;we would like to
remove the fallen tree, remove the invasive honeysuckle species,re-grade the area to help control the
velocity of runoff,and repair the creek bank by continuing the Gabion wall to the'North edge of the
property and replanting with native species.In doing this,we are:
a. Creating more low-lying area on the site for control of storm water overflow during flood events,
which will reduce the potential for downstream flooding in the future.
b. Reducing the slope of the bank within the streamside waterside zone;slowing the flow of runoff
and allowing time for the water to be filtered through planting areas before reaching the stream.
This will also help the design of the house by reducing the slope within the waterside zone to less
than 15%, removing the need for the additional 20'buffer,allowing more room in the backyard
(outside the waterside zone)for deck-space.
c. Stabilizing the stream bank with the Gabion wall, removing the possibility of further erosion.
d. Clearing the dead tree and debris from the stream,to maintain drainage capacity.
e. Clearing the invasive species(Honeysuckle Bush) and replanting the entire stream frontage with
layers of native vegetation to help filter runoff and hold the banks in place.
*See attached drawings
2) To update the house and make sure it is structurally sound,we request the addition of a few key
foundation walls along the North facade of the house,within the streamside management zone; which
is counter to UDC 168.12(F)(2)(a). Due to the constraints of the streamside Best Management Practices
Manual, the location and age of the existing structure on the site, and the concern for structural integrity;
we are requesting a variance to step outside the existing footprint to install new foundations along the
North fagade. With the existing stone foundations built in 1905,we are concerned for the structural
integrity of the Inause through the renovation process. In an attempt to stay out of the streamside
management zone as much as possible,we are proposing to cantilever the main floor over the new
foundation walls to minimize our impact while adding floor space for our client.The area of the proposed
Planning Commission
October 24,2016
Agenda Item 2
16-5635 Bingham
Page 5 of 15
new foundations,within the management zone and outside the original footprint of the house, is right at
66sf;however,the floor cantilevering over these Foundations,has an area of 164sf within the
management zone and outside the existing footprint.
*See attached drawings
3) Our client has asked for a shallow`dipping pool'to be set into the deck behind the house,while this will
be an above-ground pool,it will need a foundation;We have situated the pool in a location such that
half of the pool sits within the footprint of the original house,and the other half sits within the allowed
10' extension zone from the principal structure and does not extend into the Waterside Zone, per UDC
16&12(F)(2)(b)Minor Alterations. With the Streamside Protection Ordinance overtaking the entire back
yard with the Waterside and Management Zones, we are asking for a variance to allow us to build
foundations within the Management Zone for an above-ground pool.
'See attached drawings
We believe the design takes the owner's needs,as well as the neighborhoods reputation into consideration,and
sensitively addresses the wellbeing and biological integrity of our waterway ecosystems.We hope these variances
will not hinder the ability of the renovation to move forward in an efficient manner.
Sincerely,
Graham Patterson,Assoc. AIA + Josh Siebert, Assoc.AIA
modus studio
Planning Commission
October 24,2016
Agenda Item 2
16-5635 Bingham
Page 6 of 15
y � J
. ' • - -�•
----------
•� M
------ ---
• rte. i err rte.•
x 1
1 �.A
-------------
4 ---- .- - an+�mils�i.iei wu:�ixi:om §
31� 36 1 y
1 -rte.
- b i
¢ 1 `+n.ni:..laa to anuwu Iwr.�lw. .�•r
2
� 1 s
1 3e
1
1
E i
-- i
I
rr+�• F
I
I
i
�i
=t
Q I
i
�i
p
4++J
LL
O
1332115 M�1T1M
OQ i Planning Commission
_ October 24,2016
Agenda Item 2
16-5635 Bingham
Page 7 of 15
V
----------------
----
! ter•
-rte'rYr,
---------------- -
-rppp
-F--
rr
r-
Ti
- E i
.rte, i
,
i
�i
ai
s
Q
d
d,u j ami
(1) m,sn
A--
4—
LL i
S
v
�j 131MUS MfllllM
co Planning Commission
0 October 24,2016
Agenda Item 2
16-5635 Bingham
Page 8 of 15
- 3Nntl73N�]r33tl]flnx -
9 07
2
W
W
- - -- ----- -- -- --- -
uWni u
w t;
7 r z
2 a 6 2
!� m
I
bIW
i
Q
W
2
� a
(D a
LL
� z o
W .w
CO + �T Planning Commission
a i October 24,2016
Agenda Item 2
16-5635 Bingham
Page 9 of 15
v =
- b
C'
3 �e
�f
1
r ' e
P�
3i
9� - ------------- -
A
M
L _
s
� a
O g
133a1S MOTIM
co Planning Commission
0 October 24,2016
Agenda Item 2
16-5635 Bingham
Page 10 of 15
CD
0-
V
_ 3wia���aa�a nrns
q
9 0-1
o
�C x
� a 3
x
�7 9
� m
7 �
_ 3
a
a z
x
2
2
i3
7 z
4? °
t� Q
}� CC
v _
a J
LL.
o Q
s
2
❑ 3 vu"'i
Q
CD F Planning Commission
October 24,2016
Agenda Item 2
16-5635 Bingham
Page 11 of 15
70=
3 7
Cz
LL
r j
8 75 SgS
- ^I
•RIS[•,F
V �I
k 1a
n u u s•w.vYn n w• € �d
t
- f
CQ Planning Commission
October 24,2016
Agenda Item 2
16-5635 Bingham
Page 12 of 15
L
r �
r.,
Cr}
L11
rr
Q
C[�
LL
0
_ x
DO N Planning Commission
C October 24,2016
a Agenda Item 2
16-5635 Bingham
Page 13 of 15